Update: Ngata Out

Well, this has been a possibility all week (and I should have written about it in my prediction post), but ESPN's Rachel Nichols just reported that Ravens stud DT Haloti Ngata is definitely out for this game. That certainly is not positive news for the Ravens' ability to stop the Bengals' ground attack, and while I still like this pick, it's not the total lock that I think it would be were Ngata playing.

Week 9 Pick: Ravens -3 @ Bengals

A huge week for BadNFL looms, a week that will determine if the record remains safely above .500 or not. Luckily, there are lots of games that I like this week, none more so than the Ravens -3 (+105) at Cincinnati. Here's why:

1. Both of these teams' records are deceiving.

One of my burgeoning beliefs, one that might help check against unwise bets that leave too much to chance, is to look for a structural explanation for why the public's (and thus the casinos', as they are attempting to mirror the public) expectations for a game are seriously off-base. I suspect that the public has misdiagnosed both of the teams involved in this match-up, thus making it a particularly attractive bet. In short: the Ravens are underrated while the Bengals are overrated.

The Ravens are better than a typical 4-3 team. Some Vegas insiders refer to the concept of "coin flip games," which are games that are decided by the bounce of a ball in the last few minutes. The Ravens have essentially lost 3 of these games, and accordingly, many sharps have them high in their power rankings. In other words, had a few plays turned out differently, the Ravens could very easily be 6-1 or even 7-0. Even more reassuringly, the Ravens have largely dominated in their wins, generating a point differential of nearly double that of the Bengals despite the Bengals' superior record. As such, according to Football Outsiders' DVOA rankings--which accurately predicted the Ravens' blowout of the undefeated Broncos last week--the Ravens are the 3rd strongest team in the league, despite their middling 4-3 record. Advanced NFL Stats' prediction system also has the Ravens ranked higher than the Bengals. But because of the Bengals' solid 5-2 record, and their consequently high placing in most media power rankings, this line is a very manageable three points.

The Bengals are in some sense the inverse of the Ravens; they won a series of big AFC North games on last second drives. At some point, that luck is going to run out, and the Bengals won't be able to pull out the win as time expires. While they were certainly have proved better than expectations, I think the Bengals are now overvalued because of their series of extreme late game wins. In fact, they've played probably the most emotionally exhausting first half of football in the entire league, and I'm not sure they have enough left for the second half. Their one convincing win of late was their 45-10 shellacking of the Bears in week 7. That win is another reason I like the Ravens in this game; I think it said far more about the overrated Bears than it did the Bengals. Just watch the second half of this clip to see the NFL Playbook crew break down the Bears' lack of gap discipline and shoddy all-around play to see why. Also watch this to see a convincing film demonstration of the atrocious state of the Bears' offensive line. The perennially overrated Jay Cutler's best explanation for his inconsistent play is that he can't believe teams are blitzing him! In short, the Bengals win over a fundamentally unsound Bears' team with few good wins of their own does not make me a believer, and I think the Ravens are a superior team.

2. The Ravens came out of their bye playing the type of football that will give the Bengals problems.

Veteran BadNFL readers should hear alarm bells going off right now; after all, wasn't one of the "lessons learned" after the debacle of my week 4 Titans prediction that at some point you are what you are? That point is certainly important to keep in mind, as perhaps all point #1 above proves is that the Ravens are a good team that can't finish games. Particularly since the Bengals beat the Ravens at Baltimore this season! But here's what I'm thinking: while the argument above sets the framework for why I think this bet is undervalued by the market, there are independent reasons to think that the Ravens will match-up quite well against the Bengals this Sunday specifically.

First, Baltimore is a different team than the one that lost to the Bengals a few weeks ago. From all accounts, the 3 consecutive losses the Ravens suffered ate at them during their recent bye week, which they used to resolve a few structural issues with their defense, including, first and foremost, their pass rush. The team that came out against the undefeated Broncos last week was a thoroughly dominant one, with the Ravens playing superbly in all three phases of the game. Most importantly, the Ravens defense looked viciously aggressive again, like it did in 2008.

True, it was only one game, and if the Eagles have showed us anything, it's that teams can demonstrate maddening inconsistency from week to week. But most accounts attribute the Ravens' resurgence to both their anger at having fallen behind in the division and to some bye week mechanical tweaks, two things that should sustain themselves throughout this part of the season. The Ravens--particularly on defense--are the type of team for which an event like the dominating Broncos win can ignite the season. There is certainly precedent: last year the Ravens were similarly 3-3 after 6 weeks and then turned it around to go 11-5. When bouncing back from a similar 3 game losing streak that year, those Ravens reeled off 4 consecutive double-digit wins.

As such, I think the Bengals' win at Baltimore, far from portending a repeat this Sunday, will help the Ravens. This Ravens team knows that it needs to play 60 minutes of consistent football to stay afloat in the tough AFC North, and because of the Cincy win earlier this year, there is zero chance of a trap game this week.

Second, there are significant differences between these teams from the last time they played, differences that that bode well for the Ravens. Perhaps most importantly, the Ravens played soft zones against the Bengals last time around, a mistake that allowed Cedric Benson to run wild, and a mistake that the coaches will certainly not repeat. Indeed, if the defense that showed up at Denver last week shows up this week, the entire character of the game will be different. Moreover, Antwan Odom, the Bengals outstanding RDE, is out for the season, and he was probably the hardest player on that entire defense to replace. Even though he flew under the radar somewhat, he was having a truly dominant season, and the strength of the Odom-led defensive line was a crucial propellant of the Bengals' early divisional success, particularly against the Ravens. Not only that, but the Ravens get their solid starting left tackle, who missed the first Bengals' game, back this week. As most football savants know, particularly those who have read Michael Lewis's The Blind Side, the left tackle is the second most important position in football. Although Michael Oher (coincidentally the subject of Lewis's The Blind Side) performed admirably filling in, now the Ravens are in the enviable position of having excellent depth across the offensive line. One advanced metric puts their offensive line as the best in the league. As such, I think the Ravens will control the trenches this week, something they failed to do last time.

In addition, the Ravens have stiffened against the short-to-intermediate passing attack. Breaking down the film from the Broncos game, it jumped out how thoroughly the Ravens suffocated the short passing game. This is not surprising, as their personnel are well-suited to stifle exactly such types of routes, albeit at the expense of leaving them vulnerable to the explosive play. But Carson Palmer is one of the worst QBs in the league this year on downfield vertical passing attempts. The Bengals have not specialized in explosive plays, preferring the type of clock-eating incremental drives that the Ravens are well-suited to stop. I think those tendencies show up this week.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the extreme and unique emotional circumstances surrounding the Bengals' previous win over the Ravens. Defensive coordinator Mike Zimmer's wife had just died, and the Bengals' players understandably rallied around their defensive coordinator, playing with obvious inspiration and emotion. I remember watching an interview of Marvin Lewis before the game, when he was obviously struggling with the moment, and I thought that the emotional dynamics were similar to the Saints' first return to the Superdome after Katrina and Brett Favre's legendary performance the night of his father's death. Tom Jackson on ESPN Countdown said the same thing, noting that he was switching his pick to the Bengals on the spot (15 minutes before game time) simply after seeing the obvious gutwrenching emotion of the players and the entire team. The emotion of that day simply cannot be replicated this week, and this time, superior talent wins out.

THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT: THE BENGALS ARE COMING OFF THE BYE

The Bengals are coming off their bye week, and the claim that you should be wary of betting against teams coming off the bye is ubiquitous in football circles. My first instinct when looking at this game was to worry about the Ravens coming off a win against a good team in comparison to the Bengals coming off their bye. But as explained above, I think the Ravens will be more than ready for this game. And as for the bye? Surprisingly, since the bye was first introduced, teams have only a 52.7% winning percentage in the week after their bye, suggesting an advantage that is quite modest. And the Bengals have actually been one of the very worst teams at exploiting their bye week, putting up a 4-15-1 record in such games. More importantly, Marvin Lewis is only 1-4-1. Experience suggests that the current Bengals team simply does not benefit much from the bye week. And although they're at home, their only 2 losses this year are at home.

As such, I think this game will be closer to the 34-3 pounding the Ravens delivered last year in Cincinnati than it will be to the 3-point spread that the casinos have unwisely established. And because many books, including sportsbook.com, have set the payout at +105 on the Ravens -3 right now, it's an even more attractive pick.

Here's hoping that all of the above means that BadNFL is getting back on track this week!

Upon Further Review: Giants Crushed 17-40

Well this is becoming somewhat like a broken record; a week after a nice prediction, my pick last week missed by a country mile, as the Eagles humiliated the Giants 40-17. For the first time, though, I think that the pick was fundamentally unsound, and in this weekly edition of upon further review, we'll try and figure out what went wrong.

1. McNabb was accurate, after all.

The Eagles offense had been struggling of late, after a stinker in Oakland and an uneven performance against the Redskins. McNabb had been struggling with his mechanics and his accuracy had been suffering. Well, this week all appeared to be right with McNabb. He smirked after the game that he was pretty accurate after all, and the stats bore him out: 17/23 for 240 yards and 3 TDs to 0 interceptions. Even more incredible was the Eagles' stunning 8 yards gained per offensive play run. DeSean Jackson provided his typical 50+ yard TD score, exploiting what is becoming a glaring Giants' inability to guard against the deep ball.

Couple the explosive passing option with fullback Leonard Weaver's shocking emergence for 75 yards on 8 carries--including a long TD run on the first drive of the game--and the Giants fell behind early and had no chance. This game was never close.

2. Eli Manning continued his below average play.

As a Cowboys fan, it's difficult for me to believe that the Eli I saw on the field on Sunday against the Eagles was the same QB who played an essentially perfect game against the Cowboys in week 2. Not only was he inaccurate, but he looked tentative and repeatedly made poor decisions in the pocket. The rest of the offense played fairly decently, as the young WR corps has largely exceeded expectations and the running game is solid. But Eli was absolutely horrendous; while the Eagles burned him for 2 brutal interceptions, they could have easily had twice that number. The Eagles--in one of the least surprising tactics of the weekend--dialed up the blitz all game and forced Eli into quick decisions. And those decisions were poor. To be sure, I think plantar fasciitis is certainly affecting the accuracy of his throws, and is significantly contributing to his accuracy woes. But the lack of confidence, bad body language, and erratic decisionmaking is more troubling than his technique problems, and as of right now, it's very difficult to trust the Giants passing game to bail them out when they fall behind.

LESSONS LEARNED?

1. Giants have been exposed.

It's a problem that crops up in game prediction all the time; does a tough loss (like that first suffered by the Giants against the Saints a few weeks ago) serve to expose a team's weaknesses, leading to further losses, or does it serve to psychologically motivate them to bounce back? It's difficult to predict in advance how a loss will affect a team, but in this case, the Saints appeared to expose the Giants, providing a blueprint for how teams should attack the Giants: run spread formations with a lot of intermediate and deep routes. Beleaguered Giants' safety C.C. Brown is consistently out of position and unable to diagnose the route combinations, and as such, teams the last 3 weeks have torched the Giants deep.

With the Giants' injuries in the secondary, it's not like their deep coverage problems were hard to foresee. But I (and many analysts) thought that the Giants' pass rush would deprive McNabb of the time to deliver the ball downfield. But that pass rush has all but disappeared; the Giants have lost their swagger, they are lately characterized by busted assignments and a lack of execution. What's the difference? Perhaps it's the loss of Spagnola in the offseason; new coordinator Bill Sheridan has so far been unable to recreate the havoc posed by the Giant's front 4 in recent years. I'm not exactly sure what the problem is, but McNabb had entirely too much time to throw on Sunday. Right now, the Giants defense does not seem like it's good, and until they get some of their injured players back, I don't trust them to hold up against good offensive teams.

2. The Eagles are maddeningly unpredictable. I've been pounding my head into a wall trying to figure out how it's possible that a team that I picked to crush the Raiders could lose to that pathetic team, but then when I pick against them, deliver such beating to the Giants. My feeling is that the Andy Reid-era Eagles have done this more than any other team in the league, where they can look incredibly crappy one week and dominant the next. I'm staying away from them for the rest of the year.

Update: Do Vegas Insiders Read BadNFL?

Haha well unfortunately, the answer is undoubtedly a resounding no. But at least one sharp's reasoning is eerily reminiscent of BadNFL's arguments this week. As relayed through ESPN's indispensable Chad Millman, the line in the Eagles/Giants game has shifted from an opening line of Eagles -2 to the current line of Giants -1. Why has this line shifted so much, resulting in a rare change of the favorite? Millman's source explains:

Sevransky says: "There are four factors in relation to this line move: The injury to Brian Westbrook, which is the primary reason. The second is, situationally, the Giants have lost two in a row, while Philly bounced back last week, and bettors feel this is a more important game for the Giants. Three is the classic: The team that plays on Monday night has less time to prepare. There is some thought out there that Philly didn't play that well last Monday despite the easy win and that the Eagles aren't that good. And four, in this series, there has been no home-field advantage."

Hmm. Injury to Westbrook, the psychology of the Giants' bounce back, the Eagles' uneven and overrated performance last week, and the lack of a home-field advantage in this series? Sounds awfully familiar. The only factor I didn't mention was the Eagles' short week; however, I've yet to see any convincing statistics that suggests that the short week matters at all, and until I see some data on the subject, I'm hesitant to premise a bet on the somewhat intuitive yet absolutist and abstract theory that teams play worse after Monday night games. Still, the other factors identified above suggest to me that this is a sound bet, and evidence of the shift in the line described in this post further bolsters the argument.

Week 8 Pick: Giants (even) over Eagles

Oh, how times have changed. Before the season, the Giants and Eagles were both generally considered to be among the top 4 teams in football. Now, both of these former powerhouses are somewhat down on their luck, leading many to question whether the NFC East is considerably overrated. Still, this game features a intriguing match-up of two teams with high preseason expectations that hate each other. I also think the Giants are a great bet to win the game, making the even line enticing. Here's why:

1. The Eagles are struggling on offense, and provide a prime opportunity for the Giants to get their pass rush back on track.

The Eagles have fallen back to the pack statistically on offense, now ranking below average in both total YPG and in Advanced NFL Stats' offensive efficiency. This below-average ranking might even be generous in light of the Eagles' creampuff schedule, since excepting the Saints the Eagles' remaining 5 opponents have won a total of 7 games. As I wrote earlier, the Eagles offense generally thrives on beating up on bad teams. But in the only game against a team with a winning record this year, the Eagles were disastrous in a 26 point loss. And of course, let's not forget about the putrid and unforgivable performance they turned in at Oakland a few weeks ago. In other words, this Eagles offense has not been very good so far this year. Moreover, specifics of the match-up bode well for the Giants' chances.

The number one reason I like the Giants this week is that McNabb has struggled mightily against the blitz. He has evinced little confidence against pressure packages, looking indecisive and taking a large number of sacks against teams like the pitiful Raiders. Partly because of McNabb's struggles--and partly due to a makeshift offensive line--the Eagles should be vulnerable to a Giants' pass rush that is quite talented. Their recent struggles notwithstanding, the Giants have the exact same pieces that led a near consensus of analysts to proclaim their pass rush the most fearsome in the league. And they have run into two quarterbacks of late in Brees and Warner that are both playing well and get rid of the ball extremely quickly. McNabb does not; thus his eye-opening struggles against the blitz this year. Plus, the Giants' pass rushers have had significant success against the Eagles in the past; after all, it was the Eagles and Winston "Turnstyle" Justice who practically made Osi Umenyiora's career on Sunday night a few years ago by allowing him an incredible 6 sacks.

Additionally, McNabb's poor mechanics have been leading to significant inaccuracy of late. True, the overall stats look OK, and the Eagles did generate 27 points last week. But, despite the OK final score, the Eagles turned in an uneven performance. That game said more about the pathetic state of the Redskins and their emasculated figurehead coach than it did about the Eagles. And what we learned is that the Eagles can win in an unconvincing fashion over one of the worst teams in the NFL. Not only that, but the Eagles have not played a single good team since week 2. Thus, this week will serve as a great test of the "Danger of Four" principle that BadNFL invented in the wake of the Eagles/Raiders debacle: my theory is that it has been so long (over 4 weeks) since the Eagles have played a good team that they will struggle to adjust to the level of play against a good team.

And make no mistake, the Giants still have a good defense, ranking 1st overall and 2nd against the pass. If they have a weakness, it's their rush defense, but we all know that Andy Reid will never commit to the run. While this line is undoubtedly so low because betters have the image of Brees carving up the Giants' secondary fresh in mind, I think the Giants match up much better against the Eagles. Breaking down the film of the Giants/Saints game, the thing that surprised me was how decent the coverage was on many plays. But it didn't matter, as Brees made perfect throws to his big physical WRs who out-muscled the Giants' DBs for the ball. The Eagles' WRs are the polar opposite, relying on the speedy but diminutive DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin to generate big plays. The Giants should be able to contain the Eagles' attack better than they did the Saints.

2. The Giants are undervalued and are a good bet to fix what ails them this week.

There's no question that the Giants have lost some of their luster in recent weeks. They played a sloppy, mostly uninspired game last week against the Cardinals. But I'm still convinced that the Giants are a Super Bowl-caliber team, albeit not a dominant one, and I think they are likely to rebound in a major way this week.

This game means a ton to the Giants. Ever since McNabb's phonecall antics last year in the playoffs against the Giants, they have had this game marked on the calendar. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Giants have been looking forward to this game more than any other on their schedule. They are also somewhat flying below the radar for the first time since early 2007, which is a place that both Coughlin and the players are most comfortable. While I do admit that such psychological factors can be overrated sometimes, intensity and dedication would go far to cure what has recently ailed the Giants. The loss to the Cardinals was particularly noticeable for uncharacteristic Giants' mistakes and lack of execution, something that an intense and hate-filled week can help cure. Importantly, the Giants' peripheral statistics are still solid, especially their offensive line and their YPA on offense. In light of the recent losses, they seem like they've hit bottom and will start demonstrating again why 2 weeks ago many analysts considered them an elite team. In essence, it's the reverse of what plagued the Eagles in Oakland; the Giants have played two tough teams in a row and now play an opponent who a) is not as good as those they've been playing and b) they venomously despise. Such is the stuff of which inspired performances are made.

THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT: The Eagles won 2/3 from the Giants last year, and knocked them out of the playoffs. What will be different?

Brian Westbrook. It is difficult to overstate how much trouble Westbrook has given the Giants over the years. He was the difference in the Eagles' week-14 win last year, and the Giants' biggest offseason move was designed with him specifically in mind. I doubt Westbrook will play this week, given that he suffered a nasty concussion last Monday night. Andy Reid is of course claiming that Westbrook will be a gametime decision, but Reid has been notoriously cagey about injuries in the past, and the most credible medical prognosis I've read strongly suggests that it would be a terrible idea for Westbrook to play so soon after such a severe concusion. Without Westbrook's dual-threat capabilities available, the Eagles will likely become predictably one-dimensional, enabling the Giants defense to get back on track.

Moreover, this game is in Philadelphia. These Giants earned their reputation as a superlative road team during their wild card run to the Lombardi Trophy in 2007, but more specifically, they always play well in Philly. As a case in point, they lost their 2 home games to the Eagles last year but salvaged a win in their only match-up on the road. They also won at Philly in 2007, 2006, and 2005. That stat was pretty shocking to me, but it's true that it all adds up to this: Eli Manning has never lost in Philadelphia. It seems that going out on the road, escaping the NY crowds and the home media, to a place that the Manning-era Giants always play well, is a perfect recipe for busting out of their mini-slump. Because I think the Giants are also a structurally sounder team and that they will be more motivated in this game, they seem like a good bet to win. I wouldn't be shocked if the weekend money pushes the Giants into giving points by kickoff. As such, I'm going to pick them at even money.

Check back next week to see how it went.

Upon Further Review: Colts Cover, 42-6

Well, that felt good. The Colts disposed of the Rams by 36 points, making the 13.5 spread look pretty ill-advised in retrospect. Let's examine why, upon further review, the Colts made BadNFL look so good last week:

1. Manning led an efficient passing attack.

Well this was no shock, given that pretty much every pundit, including BadNFL, predicted that Manning would play well against the Rams' struggling pass defense. But that he did, throwing for an efficient 235 yards and 3 TDs. If anything, I'm surprised that Manning threw for under 300 yards, averaging a solid but not overwhelming 6.9 YPA. But Manning played quite well within the system of the offense, as he always does, and as usual generated lots of points and few negative plays. Like the Colts have been doing all year, they used solid protection schemes and quick releases so that the Rams' pass rush barely sniffed Manning in the pocket. And, as only Manning (and increasingly Brees) does, he distributed the ball around his offense quite democratically, leading to 5 players with at least 3 receptions.

The Colts' running game was also better than it has been, putting up 152 yards and 2 TDs for a little over 6 YPC. The overall numebrs can be misleading, as Addai--the main RB--generated a below average 3.4 YPC. But the Colts running game was still effective, for 3 reasons. First, they stuck with it, and despite a pedestrian average on most of their runs, they were able to generate the type of balance (25 rushes) that Philly infamously lacked last week in their deplorable loss to Oakland. Second, they broke off some big runs from their secondary backs, as Brown and Simpson combined for 93 yards on 5 carries. Third, they were effective running it on 3rd and short; so even if Addai wasn't particularly effective overall, he was able to move the chains consistently and give Manning and the Colts' bevy of WRs a fresh set of downs. And the Colts, as they have been all year, were lethal in the redzone. Essentially, they complemented their aerial attack enough so that Manning could put up fewer than 300 yards yet still win comfortably.

2. The Colts' defense, while proving vulnerable on the ground, generated enough negative plays to turn a lead into a blowout.

People are finally starting to take notice of the Colts' improved defense. They're playing loose, they're making progress every week as they get healthier, and they are turning into a defense--much like I've observed of the Saints'--that plays quite well from ahead. To be sure, they were pretty helpless to stop Rams' RB Steven Jackson--who ran for 134 yards--for most of the game. But it's difficult to commit to the running game when you're behind early, and that's exactly what happened. Ultimately, there seemed to be 2 related reasons why the Rams' fell so far behind that they essentially had to abandon the running game. First, the Rams could not sustain drives; even though Jackson was quite effective busting out 10+ yard runs, they were only 4/13 on 3rd down and 0/2 on 4th down (compared to the Colts' efficient 66% 3rd down conversion rate). Second, whenever Bulger dropped back to pass, bad things happen. The Colts, because of their big early lead, were able to pin back their ears and generate significant pressure with their front 4, harassing Bulger into long sacks and turnovers. In sum, the Colts continued their pattern of playing elite pass defense and run defense that is passable enough given the situation of the game.

LESSONS LEARNED

1. The Colts will cover lines like this against bad teams. Come on Vegas, 13.5 was way too low for this game, and almost everyone seemed to know it. If you look at the Colts' performance in the last 4 weeks, their mindblowing (and increasing) margins of victory jump out at you. Moreover, this is just business as usual for the Colts; they have started 6-0 for the 4th time in 5 seasons, and they just easily dispose of bad teams. The Rams have been blown out in every loss save two (Redskins and Jags), and they are last by far in the NFL in point differential. In a year that has been defined so far by heavy favorites covering, -13.5 was not an intelligent line. And while the trap game is obviously a worry, I feel pretty comfortable that I correctly diagnosed the Colts' low propensity for the trap game this week; the Colts mentally avoided the Eagles' fate, and as such, the huge gap in talent between the teams ended up being the story of the game.

2. Watch for explosive passing offenses against poor passing defenses. One of the reasons that a similarly tempting Eagles line against Oakland didn't work out was that the Eagles didn't exploit the Raiders' biggest weakness (run defense). But in both of the cases where BadNFL has predicted the Colts to cover the spread against a poor pass defense, it has really paid off big time. I think there are 3 teams that are safely in this category now: the Colts, the Saints, and the Pats. If they play a team with a bottom 5 pass defense, there is no excuse for the line to be under 14, and if it is, it should be a easy pick. Here's the thing about this year: parity is dead. Unless the lines start reflecting that, Vegas is going to continue to suffer.

Week 7 Pick: Colts -13.5 @ Rams

I'll admit readers might think, upon reading the subject line of this week's post, that BadNFL has lost it. After all, didn't I just pick a heavy favorite on the road last week, a pick that failed miserably? The answer to both questions is yes. Yet I think that this pick avoids some of the pitfalls that may have plagued the Eagles last week, and thus I'm going with the Colts as a heavy favorite on the road. Here's why:

1. The Colts have a juggernaut offense playing a terrible defense.

Manning and the Colts are leading the NFL in passing offense. Manning is on pace to break the all time NFL accuracy record. He is by all accounts leading the MVP race right now, and his performance this year is demonstrating that he is one of the very best QBs to have ever played the game. As I noted in my review of BadNFL's last successful Colts prediction, it's difficult to bet against Manning right now. And now he's facing the Rams, who have an abysmal pass defense. Not only that, but the Rams just traded their most seasoned and effective linebacker, leaving them even more exposed against the Colts' formidable TE Dallas Clark. One of BadNFL's lessons learned from week 5 was that explosive passing offenses matched up against terrible pass defenses is a recipe for a blowout. This game appears to be that sort of recipe.

2. Indy's defense is underrated and improving and it should shut down the Rams anemic offense.

The Colts really impressed me in their last game against the run; they played tough and physical with excellent gap discipline. We all know that the Rams are going to be forced to rely on RB Steven Jackson in this game, since the Rams' struggling passing attack is no match for the Colts' stingy pass defense, which is the best in the NFL according to Football Outsiders' metrics. While the Colts have certainly struggled at times this year against the run, they primarily did so against great rushing teams like Miami. They have dramatically improved, totally stifling the run in their past 3 games, and they will undoubtedly stack the box against Jackson.

Moreover, they are getting a lot of players back healthy this week, including all-world safety Bob Sanders and both of their starting cornerbacks. That fact alone should give them a psychological and schematic boost, allowing their defense to continue the Colts pattern of dominating bad teams. But even if some of these players aren't at full strength, the Colts' depth renders their losses an almost non-issue; Bill Polian has constructed a squad from top to bottom that is better able to overcome adversity than almost any other team in the league. Additionally, the Colts will likely jump out to an early lead, allowing its lightning-fast pass rushers to go after Bulger, utilizing their overall defensive speed on the St. Louis turf. It's hard not to expect the Colts defense to squelch any signs of life from a Rams offense that is putting up a pathetic 9 points/game.

THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT: TRAP GAME?

You might be suffering from a case of deja vu right now, wondering "didn't I read all the same things last week?" Explosive offense, a favorite that has dominated a lot of bad teams, a heavy favorite...aren't all these factors the same as last week? I've thought long and hard about this, and I think the answer is no.

First, I just have more confidence in the Colts than the Eagles. Manning is the type of leader and competitor that won't let his team come in unprepared or unfocused. We've seen this play out in the recent history of the Colts organization, as they are a team without a lot of wild fluctuations and ups and downs--they play consistent, focused football week in and week out. All signs are that their practices have been physical and intense this week without any signs of letting up. Further, the Manning-era Colts play very well after byes, particularly when they are on a winning streak heading into that bye. In 2007, they were 5-0 entering a week 6 bye, and won in week 7 by 22 points, and in 2006, they were similarly 5-0 and after their bye won by 14. In 2006, they were undefeated entering their bye and afterwards beat Tom Brady's Pats by 19. In essence, against a Rams team that has been blownout routinely this year, the Colts have a great chance of a huge win.

Second, the Rams have not had the sort of catalytic event that I hypothesized the Pierce comments may have had on the Raiders last week. Instead, the Rams nearly beat, but lost in OT, to a bad Jaguars team last week. But scouts who watched that game concluded that the Rams ability to play closely last week was more a sign of the Jags' incompetance than the Rams' improvement. I think after a close loss to a bad team, it'll be hard for the Rams to get genuinely inspired about playing the Colts, and they are more likely to be beaten pretty badly. The closest analogy I could find to last year was when the Rams blew a 4th quarter lead late to the Patriots and lost in a narrow defeat, but then turned around and lost by 21 to the Cardinals explosive passing offense. I think the same sort of dynamic will be at work this year, and that as such, the Colts avoid the weird confluence of events that doomed the Eagles last week. All the Colts need to do is win by 2 TDs to cover this spread. I think they do that.